We need more PwDs in legislature

The govt must remove barriers to their full participation in the political process

While announcing the upcoming Assembly elections in Karnataka, the Election Commission of India also announced measures to make the process of voting more disabled-friendly. Most notable among these was the announcement that voters with disabilities or those who are above 80 years of age can vote from home. Specifically, within five days of the election dates being announced, officials from BBMP and the ECI would visit the homes of these voter groups with a form named 12-D to seek the preference of such voters as to whether they would like to vote from home or go to the polling station. The postal ballot system will be brought to the homes of voters by postal ballot officers. It was also announced that 100 polling booths will be manned by people with disabilities [PwDs]. The latest information suggests that more than 80,000 people have asked to avail themselves of this facility, and more are likely to do so in the coming days.

This is a welcome development. Section 11 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 obligates the Election Commission of India and State Election Commissions to ensure that all polling stations are accessible to PwDs and that all materials related to the electoral process are understandable by, and accessible to, them. Since the right to vote has been recognised by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right, providing reasonable accommodations to PwDs will help them meaningfully exercise this important constitutional right.

That said, making the electoral process accessible for disabled voters is only one part of the equation. There is remarkably low representation of the disabled in India’s political life. As of July 2020, there have only been 4 MPs with disabilities and 6 MLAs with disabilities in independent India. A large part of the reason for this outcome is arguably the barriers that PwDs who wish to contest elections face. Primarily, such barriers relate to laws that restrict PwDs from contesting elections; attitudinal biases such as the unjustified belief that PwDs are less competent and the notion that their disability makes them “weak” and would prevent them from being strong and effective leaders; and the additional cost that political parties must bear in providing support to PwD candidates, such as providing a sighted assistant to a visually challenged politician; a wheelchair-accessible car to a politician with a locomotor disability; and the cost of making campaign venues accessible.

The first point is crucial: in 2011, T Kavita, a tailor, was unable to contest Panchayat elections in Tamil Nadu as the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act expressly excludes persons who are “deaf-mute” from contesting elections. P Saravanan, a blind man, was unable to contest elections in a cooperative society as the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983, disqualifies persons who cannot read and write Tamil or English. This was interpreted to mean that Saravanan was hit by this bar, even though he reads and writes using Braille. Exclusion of those who are leprosy-cured is also rife in such laws.

Such laws are clearly discriminatory and are barriers to greater participation of PwDs in the democratic process. However, even if such laws are repealed or struck down by the courts, there are other barriers: the unwillingness of political parties to nominate them and spend the additional resources to enable their equal participation.

To address this, the ECI, State Election Commissions, and other competent authorities can consider developing an action plan to enhance the political representation of PwDs. First, to provide reasonable accommodation to PwD candidates, the ECI could create a fund for meeting the expenses of candidates with disabilities that political parties can draw on, so no one party feels that it must shoulder this additional cost, resulting in a race to the bottom where no party does it.

Second, politicians must be sensitised on the importance of meaningful political participation of PwDs. Such training can impress upon the participants the lived experience and enlightened perspective on social issues that a PwD politician would uniquely bring to the table.

Finally, an accessibility audit should be conducted, and accessibility committees should be set up in Parliament and all state legislatures across the country. The audits will help identify and address issues that PwDs might face in navigating these institutions and the Committees can provide a sustainable and institutional solution to the problem at hand.

While measures to enable greater participation in the electoral process are welcome, they are only the first step to ensuring the full democratic participation of PwDs. Such democratic participation should happen at all levels of government to make India a truly inclusive democracy.

(Bajaj is the co-founder of Mission Accessibility, a senior associate fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, and an attorney at Ira Law. Kumar is a co-founder and team lead at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.)